Sex Is More Important than Religion

Religion holds an exalted status in American society, partly because it addresses big issues and partly because religious institutions have been so historically important in western civilization. Religion is seen as unique, a serious subject that tries to answer questions of life meaning, ethics and morality, God, and ultimate truth. Surely, with its focus on such deep inquiries, religion is an area that deserves special consideration.

Maybe, but let’s make one thing clear: Religion isn’t nearly as important as sex.

We can see the relative real-world importance of sex and religion by considering how each is handled in society, and in especially in the courts. The remarkable progress in the area of gay rights in recent years, for example, reflects the importance that society gives to the deeply personal issue of sexuality. When the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, it recognized that government has no business regulating the sexual behavior of consenting adults in the privacy of their homes.

Conservatives such as Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Lawrence ruling as promoting “the homosexual agenda,” but most of us see the case as enlightened, reflecting the values of an inclusive modern society. Life is short, sexuality is important, and a free country should allow its citizens sexual freedom. Regardless of what you happen to believe about heaven, God, or angels and demons, we can all agree that sexual intimacy is an important part of real life. From that premise, the legal extension of marriage rights to include same-sex couples was a logical step.

When the subject is religion, however, we find that the public and the courts are much less sympathetic to claims of inequality from minorities. Stop your whining, minorities are told. Suck it up! The message is clear: we don’t take religion that seriously – certainly not as seriously as sex.

Now, as an atheist, humanist, and human being living in the real world, I concur with the notion that sex beats religion. Even on Sunday morning (maybe especially so), I’d take the former over the latter. But nevertheless, particularly as an attorney, I find it troubling that so much lip service is paid to the subject of religious equality, only to have legitimate concerns about inequality brushed aside. A case in point is one personal to me, Doe v. Acton-Boxborough, which was decided earlier this month by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. In Doe, the court ruled that there is nothing discriminatory about daily, teacher-led classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, even though the official exercise declares the nation to be “under God.” Since the Pledge defines patriotism in theistic terms, it obviously favors theists while portraying atheists as second-class citizens at best. As such, in making the challenge in Doe, the plaintiffs relied not on church-state separation arguments, but on principles of equality. (Disclosure: I was counsel for the atheist side in the case.)

Such facts are hard to justify under a standard of equality. Moreover, even beyond those facts, atheist claims of discrimination cannot be seriously questioned. Academic research confirms what most of us already know: atheists are among the most disliked minority groups in the country. It's also just as well documented that prejudice against atheists is wrong, since extensive research shows that social problems do not generally correlate with atheist individuals or societies. (In fact, just the opposite - social problems correlate to religion.)

But frankly, the court in Doe was in some ways simply reflecting public sentiments on symbolic issues such as the Pledge, the national motto of In God We Trust, and others. Even some liberals consider such complaints to be little more than whining. Though most liberals and nonbelievers were sympathetic to our case, I met a few who shrugged their shoulders and questioned the need for such litigation: Sure, the Pledge favors believers over nonbelievers, but it’s not such a big deal, is it? It’s not like we’re talking about anything important – like sex!

In fact, however, many atheists and humanists see the symbolic issues as very important. For one thing, they don't like the idea of their kids being constantly confronted with such governmental religiosity, and having to explain to them that it doesn't really mean they are outsiders, that it doesn't really mean anything. For another, the entire nation has lurched in the direction of anti-reason since the rise of the Religious Right in the 1980s, and the symbolic issues that inject religiosity into the public arena give undeserved validation and legitimacy to those right-wing religious interests. You can disagree with such concerns, and you can continue to see the symbolic issues as unimportant in your view, but if the law says atheists and humanists deserve equality, it seems they should get it whether you agree or not.

What future surprise do we have in store ? A Chevrolet dealer that likes chevy cars ?

Also, how is someone with no training and little knowledge in Psychology or Psychiatry qualified to write for Psychology today ? Doesn’t this screed belong in "Legal affairs" or "Atheism is dandy" magazine ?

The guy that I buy fruit from thinks fresh fruit improves your mood - does he get a regular column ?

Sorry, what?
It seems like you're trying terribly hard to make a point but can't quite figure out what it is. Obviously an advocate for atheism will advocate for atheism. Congratulations, you've cracked the case.

What I'm struggling to get my head around is why you'd bother with such a pointless comment. Do you just feel compelled to share how very clever you are by stating something so beyond obvious is it quite literally self-explanatory? Because agree or disagree you have offered no argument, commentary or even indication that you actually read the article.

This piece does in fact contain some very valid points. If you really feel so strongly scornful of atheism that you feel you need to take the time to write such nonsensical comments (as clearly you do), I suggest you consider beginning by at least trying to address some of them. Or, you know, even reading the article in the first place.

I'm neither religious nor an atheist, unlike you I have yet to be given the cosmological evidence that would warrant certainty either way.

The self pity of a privileged, invisible, self selecting, demographic with above average health, status, income, and education is pathetic. Atheists are not harmed by hearing the word God any more than I am harmed by hearing "ridiculous religious illness". You are trying ( and failing ) to offend me and insult the religious. Militant atheists are far more public, disruptive, self aggrandizing and militant than any opponent that you may have.

Many, many groups have valid complaints about discrimination, smug pseudo-intellectuals are not one.

"Atheists are not harmed by hearing the word God any more than I am harmed by hearing 'ridiculous religious illness'."

True, but atheists are being treated unfairly when 'under God' is included in an officially-led patriotic pledge, just as you would be treated unfairly if 'except people who go by the pseudonym Kawenu' were so included.

"Militant atheists are far more public, disruptive, self aggrandizing and militant than any opponent that you may have."

And examples of atheists forming militia groups can be found where? As opposed to, say, Christians doing that? Yeah, right.

"Many, many groups have valid complaints about discrimination, smug pseudo-intellectuals are not one."

Well, then you should have nothing to complain about. But we godless types will go on protesting, since this particular issue is entirely valid.

'Atheism' in the U.S. is particularly despised because of its word association with 'communism', going back to the McCarthy witch hunt era.

Anything which threatens the status quo - the cosy relationship between religion, politics and commerce - can't expect a fair hearing or fair treatment. Powerful vested interests have much to lose if religion is seriously challenged.

This elephant in the room needs to be acknowledged i.e. the fear of losing wallets rather than losing souls.

Take away the huge financial investment and religion would soon become a minority interest.

" atheists are among the most disliked . . . The entire nation has lurched in the direction of anti-reason since the rise of the Religious Right in the 1980s".

If you can't keep a civil tongue in your head, don't be surprised when nobody likes you. There are a great many atheists out there who can go for five minutes without calling somebody stupid, to be sure. However, the high-profile atheists like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are bent on proselytizing at every turn, and they do so by hurling the kind of epithets that would be considered banal by elementary school playground standards. The key to having a mature discussion of religion is (surprise!) maturity.

Um, do you ever actually listen to right-wing Christians, talking about atheists? If you do, with anything even approaching objectivity, you might understand why some of us give in to the temptation to hurl epithets.

"atheists like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are bent on proselytizing"

Pointing out the ridiculous aspects of religion isn't proselytizing. People like Maher and Dawkins, as with most atheists in general, don't care if others are religious. We just don't want those ridiculous aspects being used as bases for legislation or civic exclusion.

"The key to having a mature discussion of religion is (surprise!) maturity."

And how exactly is it immature to point out the unreasonable nature of the Religious Right movement since the 1980s? Shall I post some doozie quotes of public statements made by leaders of this movement such as Robert Grant, Ed McAteer, Paul Weyrich, James Dobson, Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell?

As an atheist since I was about eight, these kinda fights are part of the issues that make atheists so "annoying" to the public. It makes any sort of fighting over issues seem quite petty, be it "in god we trust" or "under god", or swearing in on the bible.

Technically I agree, you shouldn't be forced to say "under god" if you are an atheist. You most likely shouldn't be forced to if you were a polytheist either. But we do have to admit, this is a rather petty thing. It makes atheism seem more like a bunch of gadflies than anything serious.

Most of us are in the closet to some extent, with most of America being a "don't ask don't tell" society when it comes to this sort of thing. I'm ok with that. Honestly no one is forcing their religion down my throat in a meaningful manner and thats all I really ask. Demanding that god be removed from all public display "just because" seems more petty than meaningful.

This isn't like gay marriage. I do not feel I am being denied anything of importance. I would never march to the streets about it. Now if they start to force me to go to Church or tithe, then I'm going to have my Jimmy's rustled.

I used to feel the same way -- until I had children, who were treated unfairly by their public school teachers and administrators, because of this and related issues.

It's not petty, any more than it would be petty to object to the phrases 'ruled by males' or 'for white people' or 'privileged by wealth' or 'in the name of Jesus' being included in the pledge -- none of those terms should apply, and neither should 'under God'.

"I do not feel I am being denied anything of importance."

Official recognition that you're equal to others isn't important? People have fought and died for that. I guess your mileage varies.

cuts close to home for me. In first grade (at a rural school house that brought in kids from 50 miles around) we had to say the pledge of allegiance every morning. We had a girl in the class who was a jehovah's witness. She was made to stand outside the classroom each morning. I didn't understand why she was made to feel different than the rest of us and this is what I truly believe started me down the path to atheism. I just didn't realize there were people that believed in something different than my family and why would they? Why did she believe something different than me? "Her parents raised her to believe that," my mom told me. Oh. And my parents are raising me to believe something different and the muslim kids are being raised to believe something different. "Why doesn't god come down and sort it all out?", I asked. "We each have to find our own way," I was told. But, "how do we do that when we're being taught from early childhood that this way, our family's way is the right one?"

I began to see that it is all an accident of birth and before the world had TVs and global communication, this was much easier to pull off. Now that we have the internet and we're exposed to the truth, like how the stories of Mithrus and Horus are almost identical to the Jesus story, Gilgamesh is identical to the Noah story, etc. We learn that most of this stuff has been recycled. It doesn't make it false of course, but it does show that we really don't know the answers and we're clinging to a narrative that comforts us.

It truly is sad to me that people believe life would be better if we all just believed the same things and behaved the same way. Life might be simpler for some, but hell on earth for others. Why force everyone to believe that god is protecting the United States BUT ONLY if we all bow down and behave and say his name every chance we get. What kind of benevolent creature would require this?